Drunk Dad at hookup = no kid or damaged kid?

June 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Does a father's moderate drinking, around insemination, affect conception rates or baby health? I've googled aplenty, but the info that I've found is consistently of poor quality, with lots of assertions and opinions but no data regarding actual outcomes, either for conception rates or a baby's development. I'm not interested in stories about damaged sperm, but rather solid evidence about babies, either the lack of babies or damage to their health. And I'm talking about consumption levels comfortably within the moderate range, so alcholic malnutrition and whatnot don't factor in. Thanks!
posted by NortonDC to Health & Fitness (10 answers total)

It's hard to tell if you are looking strictly for peer-reviewed studies or for anecdotal stuff, too, but I will say that I was drinking pretty regularly every couple of days, including the very night our son was conceived, and four years later he is in perfect health, intelligent, and never has been sick in his life beyond a light cold. From my limited study it appears alcohol is problematic mainly for the pregnant mother, with risks peaking around 2-4 weeks after conception and slowly diminishing.
posted by crapmatic at 1:57 PM on June 14, 2008

From The Panic-Free Pregnancy (Michael S. Broder, OB/GYN at UCLA), p. 18: "Not only is there no known effect of a man's alcohol consumption on his ability to impregnate his partner, there isn't even evidence linking it to reduced sperm or semen quality."
posted by scody at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2008

Here is a review paper on some research into the subject. In addition to ethanol damaging a sperm's genetic material, which can cause birth defects, you might also consider the epigenetic effect of ethanol on the expression of the sperm's existing genetic material.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:26 PM on June 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Not to be flip, but if moderate drinking before sex had a negative affect on conception, then we'd be a planet full of morons.
posted by incessant at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2008 [7 favorites]

The paper BP links to reviews the "existing data on paternal effects of alcohol abuse during the preconceptual period and at the time of conception." Alcohol abuse and moderate alcohol usage -- as the OP describes -- are not the same thing.
posted by scody at 2:59 PM on June 14, 2008

Alcohol abuse and moderate alcohol usage -- as the OP describes -- are not the same thing.

That's probably a fair observation, in most cases. However, the review paper may provide some insight into research about the larger subject of ethanol exposure, and what constitutes a "safe" level, if it exists.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:10 PM on June 14, 2008

Aneuploidy is where there are abnormal numbers of chromosomes. Down syndrome results from an extra 21st chromosome, for example.

Here's another paper that suggests ethanol exposure can increase rates of aneuploidy events, but 1. my University doesn't have a subscription to articles from 1987, so I haven't read it; 2. it appears to use the mouse as a model for establishing effects to genetic material; 3. I don't know how much alcohol is administered, relative to moderate consumption in humans.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:29 PM on June 14, 2008

Anedoctal, but think of the places such as Italy or France, where moderate alcohol consumption is a daily event: they do not seem to have more unhealthy babies than the US.

This review paper on the effects of alcohol seems to present an opposite view than the paper linked by Blazecock.
posted by francesca too at 4:46 PM on June 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I think this is an interesting question. I think like most other questions about early teratogens, finding good reliable data is basically going to be impossible. From the 2005 edition of Williams Obstetrics comes this quote on paternal teratogenic exposure. This book is basically the standard obstetrical text, but as all textbooks are, it is a few years behind the newest literature. Also note that any relationships drawn seem to be based on observational rather than randomized studies.

"PATERNAL EXPOSURES. There are some paternal exposures to drugs or environmental influences that may increase the risk of adverse fetal outcome (Robaire and Hales, 1993). Several mechanisms have been postulated. One is the induction of a gene mutation or chromosomal abnormality in sperm. Because the process by which germ cells mature into functional spermatogonia takes 64 days, drug exposure at any time during the 2 months prior to conception could result in a mutation. A second possibility is that during intercourse a drug in seminal fluid could directly contact the fetus. Third, paternal germ cell exposure to drugs or environmental agents may alter gene expression (Trasler and Doerksen, 1999).

Some studies support these hypotheses. For example, ethyl alcohol, cyclophosphamide, lead, and certain opiates have been associated with an increased risk of behavioral defects in the offspring of exposed male rodents (Nelson and colleagues, 1996). In humans, paternal environmental exposure to mercury, lead, solvents, pesticides, anesthetic gases, or hydrocarbons has been associated with early pregnancy loss, although the data are of varying quality (Savitz and associates, 1994)....
...There have been no adverse outcomes associated with paternal therapeutic or recreational drug exposure ... (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998; Trasler and Doerksen, 1999)"


Williams Obstetrics - 22nd Ed. (2005), McGraw Hill

Nelson BK, Moorman WJ, Schrader SM: Review of experimental male-mediated behavioral and neurochemical disorders. Neurotoxicology 18:611, 1996
posted by commissioner12 at 8:02 PM on June 14, 2008

Response by poster: I wrote to Charles Petit, the main force behind the seriously excellent Knight Science Journalism Tracker asking about this same question. Mr. Petit did some poking around on my behalf but wasn't much more successful than we've been so far. He gave a few pointers for more potential sources and offered a theory that perhaps there's so little data because what few results have been gathered suggest little impact, dispelling interest in further clinical research. Or not.
posted by NortonDC at 5:44 PM on June 18, 2008